Philippine Airlines vs.

Court of Appeals 417 SCRA

Facts: Private respondents Judy Amor, Jane Gamil, minor Gian Carlo Amor,
represented by his father, Atty. Owen Amor, and, minor Carlo Benitez, represented by
his mother, Josephine Benitez, filed with the RTC of Sorsogon, a complaint for
damages against petitioner due to the latters failure to honor their confirmed tickets.
It is alleged in their complaint that Judy Amor purchased three confirmed plane
tickets for her and her infant son, Gian Carlo Amor as well as her sister Jane Gamil for
the May 8, 1988, 7:10 a.m. flight, PR 178, bound for Manila from defendants branch
office in Legaspi City. On said date, Judy with Gian, Jane and minor Carlo Benitez,
nephew of Judy and Jane, arrived at the Legaspi Airport at 6:20 a.m. for PR 178. Carlo
Benitez was supposed to use the confirmed ticket of a certain Dra. Emily Chua. They
were accompanied by Atty. Owen Amor and the latters cousin, Salvador Gonzales who
fell in line at the check-in counter with four persons ahead of him and three persons
behind him.
While waiting for his turn, Gonzales was asked by Lloyd Fojas, the check-in clerk
on duty, to approach the counter. Fojas wrote something on the tickets which Gonzales
later read as late check-in 7:05. When Gonzales turn came, Fojas gave him the tickets
of private respondents Judy, Jane and Gian and told him to proceed to the cashier to
make arrangements. Salvador then went to Atty. Amor and told him about the situation.
Atty. Amor pleaded with Fojas, pointing out that it is only 6:45 a.m., but the latter did not
even look at him or utter any word. Atty. Amor then tried to plead with Delfin
Canonizado and George Carranza, employees of petitioner, but still to no avail. Private
respondents were not able to board said flight. The plane left at 7:30 a.m., twenty
minutes behind the original schedule.
Private respondents then went to the Bus terminals hoping to catch a ride
for Manila. Finding none, they went back to the airport and tried to catch an afternoon
flight. Unfortunately, the 2:30 p.m. flight, PR 278, was cancelled due to aircraft situation.
Private respondents were told to wait for the 5:30 p.m. flight, PR 180. They checked-in
their bags and were told to hand in their tickets. Later, a PAL employee at the check-in
counter called out the name of private respondent minor Carlo Benitez. Plaintiff Judy
approached the counter and was told by the PAL personnel that they cannot be
accommodated. Fojas who was also at the counter then removed the boarding passes
inserted in private respondents tickets as well as the tags from their luggages.
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent. On appeal, the CA
affirmed in toto the RTCs decision.

Issue: Whether the CA was correct in upholding the RTCs decision in favor of
respondents?

Held: Yes. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the
general rule is that only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon
by this Court. Factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on us
especially when in complete accord with the findings of the trial court. This is because it
is not our function to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again. However, this
general rule admits of exceptions, to wit:
(a) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises or conjectures; (c) when the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals was
based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual findings are conflicting; (f)
when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case
and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when
the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and, (h)
where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court,
or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth
by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the
Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
evidence on record.

Petitioner invokes exception (b).

As to the first issue: Whether or not private respondents checked-in on time for PR 178.
The determination of this issue is necessary because it is expressly stipulated in the
airline tickets issued to private respondents that PAL will consider the reserved seat
cancelled if the passenger fails to check-in at least thirty minutes before the published
departure time.[22

After a careful review of the records, we find no reason to disturb the affirmance by the
CA of the findings of the trial court that the private respondents have checked-in on
time; that they reached the airport at 6:20 a.m., based on the testimonies of private
respondent Judy Amor, and witnesses Salvador Gonzales and Atty. Owen Amor who
were consistent in their declarations on the witness stand and corroborated one
anothers statements; and that the testimony of petitioners lone witness, Lloyd Fojas is
not sufficient to overcome private respondents evidence.

Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals 417 SCRA

Facts: Private respondents Judy Amor, Jane Gamil, minor Gian Carlo Amor, represented by his father, Atty. Owen
Amor, and, minor Carlo Benitez, represented by his mother, Josephine Benitez, filed with the RTC of Sorsogon, a
complaint for damages against petitioner due to the latters failure to honor their confirmed tickets.
It is alleged in their complaint that Judy Amor purchased three confirmed plane tickets for her and her
infant son, Gian Carlo Amor as well as her sister Jane Gamil for the May 8, 1988, 7:10 a.m. flight, PR 178, bound
for Manila from defendants branch office in Legaspi City. On said date, Judy with Gian, Jane and minor Carlo
Benitez, nephew of Judy and Jane, arrived at the Legaspi Airport at 6:20 a.m. for PR 178. Carlo Benitez was
supposed to use the confirmed ticket of a certain Dra. Emily Chua. They were accompanied by Atty. Owen Amor
and the latters cousin, Salvador Gonzales who fell in line at the check-in counter with four persons ahead of him
and three persons behind him.
While waiting for his turn, Gonzales was asked by Lloyd Fojas, the check-in clerk on duty, to approach the
counter. Fojas wrote something on the tickets which Gonzales later read as late check-in  7:05. When Gonzales turn
came, Fojas gave him the tickets of private respondents Judy, Jane and Gian and told him to proceed to the cashier
to make arrangements. Salvador then went to Atty. Amor and told him about the situation. Atty. Amor pleaded
with Fojas, pointing out that it is only 6:45 a.m., but the latter did not even look at him or utter any word. Atty.
Amor then tried to plead with Delfin Canonizado and George Carranza, employees of petitioner, but still to no
avail. Private respondents were not able to board said flight. The plane left at 7:30 a.m., twenty minutes behind
the original schedule.
Private respondents then went to the Bus terminals hoping to catch a ride for Manila. Finding none, they
went back to the airport and tried to catch an afternoon flight. Unfortunately, the 2:30 p.m. flight, PR 278, was
cancelled due to aircraft situation. Private respondents were told to wait for the 5:30 p.m. flight, PR 180. They
checked-in their bags and were told to hand in their tickets. Later, a PAL employee at the check-in counter called
out the name of private respondent minor Carlo Benitez. Plaintiff Judy approached the counter and was told by the
PAL personnel that they cannot be accommodated. Fojas who was also at the counter then removed the boarding
passes inserted in private respondents tickets as well as the tags from their luggages.
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent. On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the RTCs
decision.

Issue: Whether the CA was correct in upholding the RTCs decision in favor of respondents?

Held: Yes. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the general rule is that only
questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. Factual findings of the appellate court
are generally binding on us especially when in complete accord with the findings of the trial court.  This is because
it is not our function to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again. However, this general rule admits of
exceptions, to wit:

(a) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
conjectures; (c) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the judgment of
the Court of Appeals was based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual findings are conflicting; (f)
when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to
the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
and, (h) where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere
conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by
the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and
are contradicted by the evidence on record.

Petitioner invokes exception (b).

As to the first issue: Whether or not private respondents checked-in on time for PR 178. The determination of this
issue is necessary because it is expressly stipulated in the airline tickets issued to private respondents that PAL will
consider the reserved seat cancelled if the passenger fails to check-in at least thirty minutes before the published
departure time.[22

After a careful review of the records, we find no reason to disturb the affirmance by the CA of the findings of the
trial court that the private respondents have checked-in on time; that they reached the airport at 6:20 a.m., based
on the testimonies of private respondent Judy Amor, and witnesses Salvador Gonzales and Atty. Owen Amor who
were consistent in their declarations on the witness stand and corroborated one anothers statements; and that
the testimony of petitioners lone witness, Lloyd Fojas is not sufficient to overcome private respondents evidence.